zhanzhibar vs Amex/AIC/Newman/ Brachers Solicitors

[Undercover-Elsa]

I think Zhan has a right to know though, since they're beating him over the head with it. If it's in the public domain I think it's fine, and all we need is the arguments, the names don't have to be shown if they're posted up.

[Desperate Daniella]

I do see your point absolutely.

 

But if they get posted here, and then are subsequently posted by the people in question who may be caggers then by comparing the judgments they can be identified - and they may not want to be.

[Undercover-Elsa]

I see your point DD

Maybe their names should be edited from all posts on this thread?

Elsa x

[Desperate Daniella]

That's a good idea.

 

My concern is that if they are identified as Amexfighter123 from the judgment appearing twice over then other creditors could work it out too.

 

I'll hit the red triangle.

 

DDx

[Monty2007]

I think if they had wanted these judgments posted here they could have put them up themselves. We don't know what is currently happening with their cases. Even if someone does find them I don't think they should be posted up. I do think that would be an invasion of privacy.

 

Rest assured, a number of recent "Amex Judgements" are being appealed.

 

I would recommend that no original documents are posted up that can be linked to a CAG member since, as we know Amex/Mitchcon are on CAG and downloading documents and even presenting them in court?!

 

However, they seem to be up to their eyes in the brown stuff themselves, this information is in the public domain and can be viewed at the link below.

 

Men charged with €22m bank fraud - 18/06/2010

 

 

 

Two men have been charged with attempting to defraud a bank of €22m using false documents.

 

The charges were brought by the Serious Fraud Office against former property developer Michael Andrew Shephard, 49, and Kevin James Christopher Steele, a 50-year-old solicitor. Both men are charged with conspiracy to commit fraud and conspiracy to use false documents.

 

The charges stipulate that the two men attempted to use falsified bank documents to obtain a bank loan of €22m. It is alleged they attempted to convince EFG Bank that there was a deposit of £76m in Shephard’s name at Bank Julius Baer in Guernsey to use as security on a €22m loan from EFG Bank, when both parties knew this to be false.

 

Steele, a former partner at solicitor firm Mishcon de Reya, is also charged separately with abusing his position between October 2007 and September 2008 by procuring an undertaking given to EFG Bank in respect of the EFG loan, mishandling Shephard’s account and theft of £1.8m from that account to settle an unrelated civil claim. Steele has been expelled from Mishcon de Reya and referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

A statement from Mishcon de Reya said: "Kevin Steele was expelled from Mishcon de Reya in September 2008.

 

"The firm carried out a thorough internal investigation and brought in the police and the Solicitors Regulation Authority. It has ensured that the interests of its clients have been fully protected. As the matter is in court, no further statements will be made."

 

Both defendants are currently on conditional bail, with a hearing due to be heard at Southwark Crown Court on August 12.

 

Reproduced from:-

 

Credit Today online

Edited June 23, 2010 by 42man

[Rhia]

Absolutely brilliant!

 

Zhan I know you have a hell of a fight on your hands but when you are standing there it doesn't hurt to hold the thought in your mind that, despite it's pedigree Mishcon actually have employed a criminal and at a senior level.

 

You couldn't make this up.

 

Also you must not allow them to attempt to move the case to London. As a Litigant-in-Person you are permitted to have the case heard at your local court. You need to object as soon as possible and state you are a LiP whereas the company is very high profile law firm with big resources and it would give you considerable inconvenience and hardship and not be in the interests of justice for this to be moved to suit their convenience.

[JonCris]

Correct me if I'm wrong but has not a rather senior (former) solicitor at Mishcon just been convicted of fraud:confused:

 

EVERYBODY please do tell me if I'm wrong then I can remove my post

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello JC!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but has not a rather senior (former) solicitor at Mishcon just been convicted of fraud...

Unless there's another one we don't know about, the one above has yet to be convicted...

 

Both defendants are currently on conditional bail, with a hearing due to be heard at Southwark Crown Court on August 12.

So, he could be innocent. The chap is innocent until proven guilty.

 

All will be revealed just after 12th August, when we'll know if the ex-Pishcon Partner will be swapping his pin-stripe suit for a suit with much bigger stripes going the other way.

 

I wonder if Pishcon will be representing him!

 

Of course, the story could be false. You just can't believe what's published on certain websites these days.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[JonCris]

If he's not guilty Mishcon & the SRA are on dodgy ground cos I understand both have expelled him. Again EVERYONE please correct me if I'm wrong

[JonCris]

Its in the Telegraph so must be true:D

[Rhia]

LOL! A much more reliable source than the Daily Rant.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello JC!

 

It's reported on the Serious Fraud Office Web Site:

 

Two charged in alleged bank loan fraud | Press room | SFO - Serious Fraud Office

 

But this is hi-jacking Zhanzhibar's Thread, so funny as it clearly, clearly is, we'd better let Zhan get back to business!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Docman]

I have access to a legal search engine to research cases. I cannot find any case of Amex v D or Amex v B. In fact the only cases involving D are an appeal on a company share issue and a criminal case appeal. For B, the only case involving B is one here a solicitor sued the Law Society.

 

Zhan, you need to ask Phiscon to cite the case properly.

[letshelp]

Subbing

[diddydicky]

when yanyone finds them - i would be very obliged for details by pm

 

thanks

 

dick

[Fluffystuff]

Hi all,

 

I have today received letter from Restons, you can see it here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/244988-fluffystuffs-oh-hfc-7.html

 

so would be extremely grateful if anyone could provide further info on this.

 

Many thanks.

[zhanzhibar]

Hi all,

 

Well.. looks like round 2 with Amex is around the corner. Received Notice of allocation to fast track from the court which state:

 

1. The claim is allocated to the Fast Track
   
2. Each party shall give to the other party standard disclosure of documents by serving a list of documents by 23rd July
   
3. All request for inspection of documents must be made by 4pm on 30 July 2010.
   
4. The parties mutually disclose by 4 pm on 3rd September 2010 the signed statements of all witnesses of fact on whose evidence they intend to rely together with any notices to rely on hearsay evidence.
   
5. No expert evidence being necessary no party has permission to call or rely on expert evidence
   
6. Any request for clarification or further information based on statement of case, a document disclosed or a statement served must be served within 14 days after disclosure or service and must be dealt with within 14 days thereafter.
   
7. Each party msut file a completed lising questionnaire by 4 pm 14th oct. The parties must file with their listing a succinct case summary and schedule of issues (which they must seek to agree) and if any party seeks leave to call oral expert evidence, copies of the relevant reports and any joint statments and/or replies to questions.
   
8. The claim will be tried period commencing 29th November to 10 December.
   

 

Now, I never had to attend a fast track court hence a bit in the dark in all these disclosures.

 

Can anybody tell me what exactly is requested at no 2 above? Am I right in thinking its all that I want to rely on come trial? Hence this list must be all of correspondence letters between me & DCA, the "agreeement" with no name, the invalid DN?

 

Can this list include the judgement handed down by the DDJ for dismissal of summary judgemnt? Does it inclue cases of law that I want to rely on?

 

In other words, can I put anything & everythin that i want to use in the trial on this standard disclosure of documents?

 

Somebody told me that I cannot bring in the DDJ dismissal of SJ from previous hearing as it is 2 seaparte hearing, is that right?

Anybody got an example of standard disclosure for fast track?

[foolishgirl]

Disclosure by list should be done on a Form N265 in accordance with PD31.3.1:

PRACTICE DIRECTION 31 – DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION - Ministry of Justice

 

The form is available online from HMCS.

 

You need to include everything you might need in court as if you don't, the evidence could be ruled inadmissible. If you need to disclose anything else at a later stage you can do so by informing the court & the claimant & including the relevant copies if appropriate.

 

There is a good eg here - Post 103:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/124572-hfc-no-agreement-amended-6.html#post1347693

[zhanzhibar]

Hi all,

 

A few questions for all expert out there if I may as I am still slightly confused about the course of this trial.

 

Prior to Amex's SJ application, I have done the usual defense and amended defense for this case then when they applied for SJ I did a witness statement for the hearing.

 

So now that they decided to keep going for a trial:

 

a) does my defense & amended defense I did before SJ application still applicable?

b) does my witness statement for SJ still applicable

c) how can I reply to Bracher's letter replyg to the judgment handed down or the letter sent by mishcon to make my point across to the court?

d) to do © above do I make use of the witness statement that I have to prepare or do I ask to do an amended defense?

d)can I used my SJ witness statament and extend it further to reply to events happening after that up to today?

[JonCris]

Are they effectively re-pleading if so they MUST allow you to do the same with each party bearing their own costs? OR if the re-pleading is at their behest you could ask them to pay YOUR costs of re-pleading

[zhanzhibar]

Are they effectively re-pleading if so they MUST allow you to do the same with each party bearing their own costs? OR if the re-pleading is at their behest you could ask them to pay YOUR costs of re-pleading

 

Hi JonCris, they are not re-pleading. I think the summary judgment application was to try and see whether the court agree with them that I do not have any basis for defending. Unfortunately the judge disagree, but the option to take me to trial is still theirs so that's what they did. Its kinda confusing me because I do not know the starting of this trial, is it from the point after the summary judgment dismissed i.e. whatever i have given the court before defense, amended defense are no longer applicable or just continue as per usual. I have to submit a witness statement by 3rd september so what do I do if I want to put more points across..?

[foolishgirl]

Don't know why you would want to amend your defence at this stage zhan but you can, & should if you have more info, points to make etc, submit another WS. You can refer to it as WS2 & your exhibits should also be submitted again (plus any extra) & numbered accordingly.

 

The WS you submitted before was in relation to the SJ hearing, you need to treat this hearing as though the SJ hearing had never taken place so it's business as usual.

[zhanzhibar]

I think I better put up the judgment as it has already been handed down& then what Bracher's sent me in reply to that & then what Mishcon sent me when they want to resume things again.

 

Also I just realised that I have to submit witness statement to court for this case on the 3rd and I have actually missed the boat to request to see all their disclosure point 3 of the order below.. now that's abit worrying ....bummer!

 

 

 

 

And this is brachers reply to that judgement:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2010 by zhanzhibar

[zhanzhibar]

Then Mishcon sent me this;

 

 

Edited August 25, 2010 by zhanzhibar
take out my name...duhh!

[zhanzhibar]

So in the light of all of the above correspondence, I am thinking (if I could with the help of all you guys & gals who are more expert than I am) to try to point out the flaw of the points they are making. The only question is I don't know how to go about to do it, should i raised the points through WS or should I be asking to do an amended defense? What do you all think?